Book Break Down: Till We Have Faces

So I’ve analyzed movies and songs on this blog, but surprisingly, I rarely ever talk about books, and I grew up being more of a reader than a watcher, we didn’t even have TV for years. [Honestly, I don’t watch TV itself now, I stream so I can pick the shows, but, who doesn’t now?]

Anyway, I still read, I try to read at least one book a month if I can, and I log the books to keep track.

And one I read every year usually, is my all time favorite book “Till We Have Faces” by C. S. Lewis.

Lewis is my favorite author anyway, but this book is his best work of fiction in my opinion, and some other critics agree.

It’s not as novel as his space trilogy, but it’s far easier to read and had much deeper themes that are not as…theoretical as those books, (if you read them you’ll get what I mean, but I’m not talking about those ones.)

But you’re not here for me to just talk about Lewis, let’s dive into the book itself:

Plot and Concept:

In brief terms, “Till We Have Faces” is a re-telling of the myth, my favorite myth as it happens, of Psyche and Cupid, or Eros, if you prefer the correct name.

The myth itself has strong Christian undertones, considering it’s a pagan myth, as the symbolism of it is basically that our soul (which is what psyche means) must be united with Love (Cupid) to become immortal. There also a part when Cupid raises Psyche from the dead after she descends into the underworld to bring beauty to Aphrodite, the goddess who represents lustful love instead of true romantic love, or perhaps superficial love to be more accurate.

Psyche and Eros have a divine child whose name means ‘joy’ which shows how the product of the soul meeting love is Joy.

The story features two jealous sisters, so it is like a tweaked Cinderella story, but also a tweaked Beauty and the Beast. These kinds of stories run all over myths and legends across the world, makes me wonder if there was a common root that did actually happen.

Psyche is alone and unable to marry because people treat her as goddess instead of a person, so an oracle prophecies that she will marry a monster feared by both gods and man, but this turns out to be a riddle that means Cupid, since love is powerful enough to make both gods and humans do things they would normally do (and Greek myths are full of the God doing dumb things because of ‘love’).

A pretty cool story on its own, really, but Lewis’ retelling is masterful.

In Lewis’ retelling, Psyche is instead sacrificed to Ungit, the name he gives Aphrodite, the goddess who represents animal, profane love that only takes and takes and gives nothing back.

But Psyche is rescued by The West Wind god, and taken to the god of the grey mountain, who is Eros in this story.

They are wed, and she lives happy but Orual, her older sister who is uglier than any other woman in the world, finds out about it and is jealous of her, though she thinks it is not jealous.

To make a very complex story short, Orual forces Psyche, by her love, to betray the god of the mountain, and Psyche is sent into exile as punishment, while Orual is told that she “will know herself and her work, and she also shall be psyche.”

Orual is not sure what this means, and instead of being doomed, she becomes the Queen of her country, Glome, in the next week, and rules for many years, trying to bury the pain of the memories of Psyche and what the God told her.

The Conflict:

Finally, Orual hears the story of Psyche and herself retold, but in the original fashion of the real myth and it infuriates her, so she writes a book, which is the book we the audience are reading, of a complaint against the gods, putting it to us like a case to be heard, hoping that some Greek, who speak more freely of the gods that her own people, I’ll read it and judge.

After she writes the book, she begins to have mysterious visions from the gods of things happen to her, that also happen to Psyche, in the myth, only for her they are much harder and more painful.

She begins to also learn from the people around her that she’s lived her life devouring the lives of others, as she was always bitter that she was ugly and could never marry or have children, so she obsesses over a married man who she loved, and she kept her adopted father, the Fox, in Glome with her isn’t sending him home, and she abandoned her other sister Redival, in order to have Psyche all to herself. And she wanted Psyche to love her just as obsessively, instead of in a normal, healthy way.

One of the most striking moments of the book, early on, before all this, in which Psyche says to her

“You are indeed teaching me about kinds of love I did not know. It is like looking into a deep pit. I am not sure whether I like your kind better than hatred.” [Chapter 14]

Later, after seeing the visions, Orual is taken to the court of the gods and her case is read.

As she hears her own voice saying the true words of her soul, she realizes that she only ever wanted to devour Pschye’s love, to possess it all for herself, she never truly loved her unselfishly. The gods gave her chances to do so, but she rejected them all and instead blames the gods for luring Psyche away by their beauty and their goodness that she didn’t understand.

After this, she is shown all the thing Psyche suffered for her sake and then, she is taken to meet the god of the grey mountain, and Psyche also meets her and forgives her, and give her the beauty of death (but death to the profane love of Ungit, not literal death) and Orual sees her reflection changed to be beautiful, and then she hears the words: “You also are psyche.”

She then wakes up and writes in the book that she knows why the gods don’t speak to us face to face, because they can’t ’till we have faces?’ (A line that always gives me chills).

Meaning that, until we know what we really mean, and not just what we think we mean, they cannot be open with us, since we cannot be open with them.

She also writes that she knows now that the god of the mountain did not give her an answer, because he is the answer.

Christians will spot the characteristic that we assign to Jesus here, as that is the metaphor of the god.

Context:

I think you could understand this book without knowing anything about Lewis, if you have a good understanding of the idea of love, and real love versus selfish or toxic love.

However, I’ve seen many people review the book who said they did not fully understand the ending, or all the themes.

When I read it the first time, I understood it by the time I got to the end, and every time after that, when I read it, I understood it better. Especially after I read “The Four Loves” by Lewis also.

Lewis has a fictional version of pretty much all of his non-fiction books of theology and philosophy, which not a lot of people know. This book is his fictional version of “The Four Loves”, as well as some parts of “The Weight of Glory” and “Mere Christianity.”

You can find some of this in his fictional book “The Great Divorce,” but this book is his magnum opus of writing about love, so I always refer back to it the most.

To understand the ending of the book, as well as the conflict you need to know the Lewis believed that true love, charity or agape, as he called it (the Greek word for unselfish, unconditional love is agape) was the holy kind that has to come into every other kind of love to make it good.

And the human love, which is ‘need’ love’, he says, will become devilish, if left to itself.

He give examples of such, how things like affection (family love, also called storge), can keep people under the control of their family if they are left to themselves; how friendship love (phileo) can be snobbish and exclusive and also corrupt people because it puts the friendship above doing the right thing; and how romantic love (eros) can corrupt people even more by being so exciting that it makes them do things like cheat, lie, and steal, all in the name of love.

And some people are even cruel to the one they love, because they think love makes it okay.

In each case, he points out that the love doesn’t have to be evil, but when all other things are put aside, all moral and rational limitations to it, then all loves becomes evil.

Agape love can’t be evil because the basis of it is that it loves you freely, it doesn’t ask for anything back, it doesn’t need anything from you, and it doesn’t demand you do what it wants. It’s love free from the temptation to be possessive.

Obviously, he points out, no human being can perfectly live in that state of love at all times.

It’s not necessarily bad, to need each other. As in this life, we will need each other, and most people like to feel needed. Being completely independent of people is more selfish than needing them a little bit is.

But when that need becomes all we can think of, and we can never put it aside even if it’s hurting the other person, then the love is demonic. Or profane, as some people put it.

Now we usually say toxic. I like profane better.

Toxic love can be negligent in a relationship, if it’s not too big a part of it. We like to joke these days about toxic traits, but most toxic traits, in small amounts, won’t ruin a relationship. If the other person understands you and is willing to overlook, and you do the same for them, then it won’t really matter in the long run, though you should definitely still try to improve.

But profane love is where there is nothing but that. Toxic love that has poisoned the entire relationship, the kind narcissistic people have. They cannot ever love you with anything but that kind of love.

Even when they act like they’re doing something unselfish, they expect you to pay them back for it in some way.

To me, this book was life changing. I read “The Four Loves” I think after I had read this book, but when I went back and re-read it, I saw how brilliantly Lewis wove the themes of those principles in the story.

Orual, once you know how to look for it, is a huge example of profane love. Yet she’s not hateable. She had good points– he still made her believably human.

Her ugliness, which I saw complained about by some readers, is symbolic. It’s meant to show how her love is ugly and profane as her face is, and when she is freed from that love, she is freed form her ugliness also, at least, spiritually.

There are also other favorite themes of Lewis in the book, such as how important reason is, represented by the Fox’s character who is a Greek Philosophy lover.

Also some very sharp insights into how cruel men are often hiding insecurities, and bitter women are hiding jealously.

Not that it can’t go both ways, it can, and it does, sometimes.

There are also ideas of sin, and repentance in there. As Orual must die before she dies to escape Ungit, who represents carnal sin and love, and it’s said that even Psyche, who was a nearly perfect human, had to die and escape her as well. How they have to gather the beauty of the gods without effort, because no effort of theirs could get it, and how we have to resist temptation to give into the pressures other people put on us, even when we love them, if it means disobeying God, because God comes first.

Lewis goes into more detail on these themes in “The Four Loves”, but the book portrays this so poignantly, that it’s impossible not to see yourself in some of what Orual says and does.

Personal Impact:

I’m not kidding when I say that this book changed my life. I read it maybe a few months to a year after I became a Christian, and my relationship with my family was still a wreck at that point.

A lot of that was my dad’s fault, I certainly saw him in the abusive father in the book, but, the book showed me the things that I did and said that were like my dad, and things that weren’t like him, but they were still wrong. It made me see my relationship with God differently also.

C. S Lewis believed that we can never see ourselves clearly, or our sin, that we can never be fully aware of how bad it is, or how good God is, but only see dimly. This is probably true, as the Bible says similar things.

That idea helped me to be more humble when I prayed, not always, and I’m not always now, but at least I had the concept fully rooted in my mind that I could never fully know myself enough to know if God was wrong to do as He did. Also to question my motives for things whenever I started whining about not being treated fairly; sure sometimes, it’s valid to say you deserve better; but you have to watch to make sure yours not demanding something just because you want it, and not because it would be best.

The book didn’t make me neglect my own well being, as some people say Christianity teaches people to do, if anything I think it helps me understand why my father was wrong and I needed to cut ties with him as an adult. Other teachings I heard sometimes made me think I needed to put up with his abuse, but not this book.

It also always reminded me that the answers in God are often found more just by knowing him more than by mere logic. Not that logic isn’t good, Lewis loved logic and reason, but often we find it’s limited, since we are humans, and everything we do is limited. Sometimes you have to go beyond just pure reason to understand things.

Criticisms:

People have accused this book of being sexist because of the many things Orual says against women and as an ugly woman.

I think that’s because they don’t read Lewis’ other books. Lewis was not sexist (at least not for his era) and he had many women students and married a woman who he admitted often won arguments with him very easily. He actually liked that about her (and he dedicated this book to her, in fact, since she held him come up with concept).

He puts himself into the mindset of a bitter woman so well I’m often shocked when I read it, as mostly when male authors try to write how women feel, they fail miserably, in my experience, because they think of it as a woman instead of person.

As a woman, I could relate to Orual, though I’m not ugly, but as someone with a bad father, and who’s been rejected often for reasons beyond my control, I could still identify with her bitterness and sadness.

As well as her wish to assuage that by grabbing at whatever she could.

I don’t find this sexist. Men do it as well, and men can see themselves in this book just as easily as a woman can. The remarks Orual makes about women are from her own bitterness, and made because the character narrates the book, they are not Lewis’ actual opinion on things.

He was very good at making even characters who disagreed with him feel real and if you read his other books all of his characters feel like real people you could meet, except the ones who are sometimes wiser and more noble than humans usually are.

The other complaint is the themes are hard to understand.

Well, they can be. They were not as hard when he wrote it, more people had read the myth, and more people were writing other works with similar themes at the time.

I think it was still very complex, even then, but to our barely literate culture now, it is hard to understand.

That said, it’s still an easy read, full of fun language that’s not too old fashioned for most fantasy lovers to read, and fun characters.

I don’t recommend letting a child read it since it talks about sex more openly than his other books do, but he didn’t write it to be a children’s book.

I would say though, any child 12 and up could probably handle this book, since it’s not too explicit and that’s the age most kids start being more self aware about how they act, so that’s when it would help to read books like this.

I was about 14 when I read it the first time, and I understood it, but I was very literate for my age, so if parents are going to let their child read this, I’d say to use your own discretion.

Closing thoughts:

There are not many books like “Till We Have Faces” anymore. It’s a level of parody and fantasy writing that most authors just can’t achieve in the modern era, because they haven’t read enough books like it.

Its deep themes are timeless, and everyday problems, not ones that only intellectuals would care about.

The ideas of love within family and romantic relationships are ones we all can learn from, as well as how we isolate ourselves in our own minds, when we’re bitter and angry about our lot in life.

So I recommend reading it even if it’s not your usual thing.

You can find an audio book version if reading isn’t your thing, and I recommend doing that, because this book is too good to miss if you like fiction and especially if you like myths and symbolism.

I’d like to close with a few more memorable quotes:

“Don’t you think the things people are most ashamed of are the things they can’t help.”– Psyche.

“You must die before you die,”– the god.

“Who can feel ugly when the heart meets delight?”– Orual

“And in that far distant day when the gods become wholly beautiful, or we at last are shown how beautiful they always were, this will happen more and more. For mortals, you see, will become more and more jealous. And mother and wife and child and friend will all be in league to keep a soul from being united with the Divine Nature.”– The Fox

Thanks for reading, and stay honest– Natasha.

How do I know what I believe is True?

One philosophy you hear a lot nowadays is that we should respect each other’s beliefs because all beliefs are equally good.

I don’t know anyone who actually believes that, but I do hear plenty of people try to end arguments with it.

Nobody interested in discussion could actually believe that line. Go into any forum online and find people arguing about the dumbest crap imaginable, and see how right they think they are.

“Do you see a man wise in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.” (Proverbs 26:12)

But as G. K. Chesterton said “There is a thought that destroys thought.”

I could get into all that today, but it’s more of a lead in to what I really want to talk about:

Since people do make the claim quite often that Christians avoid hard questions about their faith, I try to occasionally tackle them on this blog, just to show I’m not afraid of it and there are answers.

Today, I was thinking of a question that sometimes bothers me, and has since I was a kid.

Which is: In all the myriad of philosophies, theologies, and ideologies out there, how can you know that you’ve found the one and only correct one?

Problem and Solution: The many versions of Christianity.

Actually, my sister was recently in a YouTube thread debate where one particularly angry person demanded how Christians could know we were right when there’s like 30,000 sects of Christianity out there, who all think they’re right.

Firstly, while that’s a good question, I have to point out it’s not a good litmus test. There’s sects of every single religious and worldview, even the secular ones. Honestly, the more compelling it is, the more sects there are because people are always anxious to make their own version of the really compelling stuff.

Consider a Religion to be like a piece of art, a really good movie, for example. There’s always hundreds of knock-offs, some that do a good job parodying the original, some that make you question how anyone could ever like this kind of crap, but there’s imitators, rip-offs, and paying homage to the legacy. That’s just with something as small as a movie, or a painting.

I mean, Mr. Peabody features a cartoon version of the Mona Lisa because it’s such a great piece of artwork, doesn’t make it accurate, but the imitation is proof of the original’s far reaching influence, over half a millennium of time thereabouts.

So, if there truly are around 30,000 sects of Christianity, it only shows how many people find the core of it to be true, even if the trimmings and trappings cause division. Like how C. S. Lewis, Chesterton, and many others can write books summarizing the key components of Christianity that we all can and should agree on if we believe the Bible, but they have different beliefs about practice.

I know nowadays two powerful apologetics ministries, and one believes you can use the basic prayer that people put on tracts in order to lead someone to God, and the other believes that’s wrong and you should have them pray from their own hearts. Both oft em are very successful, honest organizations that really believe in what they are doing.

Personally, do I have a preference? Sure. But I don’t feel it’s worth arguing over. The Bible doesn’t say how you have to do it, and people should go with what they feel is genuine.

Actually, did you know the Bible says all you have to do to be saved is “Confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord, and Believe in your heart that God raised Him from the Dead” (Romans) So, that’s pretty open to interpretation of how you could do it.

The need for the absolute truth

However, there is a huge difference between saying people have their own paths to the Truth, and saying that Truth itself has different paths. And paths to what? When you make truth a means to an end instead of the end itself, what exactly is the use of knowing it?

Meditation on happy things just because they make you feel happy (the gist of most Eastern meditation as we in the West now practice it) is rather pointless if they are not in reality, True.

I’ve never been comfortable with that idea, I have to have a truth to think on, I can’t just think. I get really stressed if I just think.

So, that said. How do I know that what I believe is right? How can I have the most true version of Christianity.

Well, it is probaly arrogant to assume I do. But here’s how I try to shape my worldview to make it at least as accurate as I can.

Tests I apply to my Worldview.

When I decide to believe a doctrine, I don’t just do it because I grew up hearing it. I have parents who read, study, and think critically a lot, so I usually give their opinions a good deal of weight. Unlike many kids, I can count on my parents having read about whatever they tell me is rue, and compared it to other opinions. They have blind spots, true, but they try at least to do their homework.

In fact, it was weird to me when I got old enough to realize most parents don’t actually study to see if what they tell their kids is true or not. They just tell them whatever they’ve heard themselves. (Ah, homeschooling, the most beneficial form of education to this day).

I can’t name any real differences in what I believe and what my mom believes, though I can with my dad.

One: Study

But I didn’t just assume my mom was right. I read the books too. I read a lot of books about Christian doctrine as a teen, and I still do as an adult. I am always excited to find if someone has seen something I haven’t. God tends to end my certain books right at the time a new chapter in my life is opening and I need them.

When I read “Orthodoxy” someone else had finally put into words what I had felt about my faith and it’s all encompassing nature, and it was at a time when I was about to enter some very secular, anti-religious Philosophy and later History classes. It helped me to have that fresh in my mind, and I was able to use it to see my way clear through the confusion.

Test 2: Credibility (primary and secondary theology)

When I find a really good book, by an author I believe to be genuine, I am much more likely to include it in my doctrine. C. S. Lewis was a man whose personal character can be attested to by so many of his peers, students, and predecessors that I have little doubt he really believed what he wrote.

Plus, I can check it against scripture.

Most importantly, when I find a bunch of good, well studied men have agreed on certain points, I am more likely to give it credibility.

Lewis, Chesterton, MacDonald, and others all had similar ideas of Chioice, Free Will, Love, ad needing to see the Beauty in Life to be able to see the Beauty in God. While I cannot find Bible verses to specifically state what they write about it, I can look at life and see how often people act just the way they describe, and how their reasons seem to make the most sense to me as to why.

While the Bible does not state it in so many words, it does support those principles.

See this is the trick with secondhand theology.

Firsthand theology is what the Bible clearly says, anyone who breaks from it is just a heretic, plain and simple. Someone who denies Jesus was raised from the dead, that Adam and eve were the first humans, that Gay Marriage is not expressly forbidden, those people are heretics. It’s simply not in there.

Secondhand theology is about the less vital stuff, but the stuff you live your life around. What to eat, what to wear, how to do church, how to do charity, how to raise your children.

The Bible is appropriately less specific here because any sensible person knows its gong to be different in different countries, times, and situations.

That’s where theologians and moralists come in, to give us principles that will work best in the most cases, and trust us to figure out the exceptions. That’s why if I read a Christian author who seems to feel it’s their way or the high way, I immediately take it less seriously, because they may not know all the situations that could prove their way doesn’t work.

An example here would be the very popular “Five Love Languages” books, that most Christians have heard of in the West, and some nonchristians too. I read it over and over, and used to believe it was infallible, it makes sense, after all. People are different, you got to love them differently.

I now have learned if an author every uses words like “we have overlooked a very crucial truth” about what they claim is their own discovery, there’s usually a reason it was overlooked.

Chesterton’s confession that he tried to come up with his own religion, and found out it was only “orthodoxy” is much more honest.

Do Love Languages exist? Of course, just like people like different colors and foods, they like different expressions of love. But it’s not a fix-all anymore than knowing your spouse’s favorite color means you can buy them clothes they will like.

Okay, so that’s basically how I do this. I do plenty of my own thinking about stuff also, especially when I see a really difficult question.

But at bottom, any honest person know they can always find people to back up their views, you can read selectively, you can go to a Church that’s an echo chamber for your own thoughts. I’ve seen that result in a lot of tension in my family, and others over the years. A lot of personal stress too.

One of my least favorite tests that God seems to like to use is the test of Trouble.

Test 3: Trouble (suffering, loss, disappointment, etc.)

When I’m in pain, emotional or physical, doesn’t matter, what I fall back on, what actually keeps me going, what pulls me out of that hole, whatever those truths are, those are the ones I know work. I know because I had to either learn that or die, at least so it felt.

For me, failure in knowing the truth is not an option.

(I wish I had a T-shirt that said that.)

People who say you don’t need to have an ultimate truth to live are liars, or they’re idiots, or they’ve had a carefree life. There are times when you look into that black abyss in your soul, and there is nothing in it to give you any inkling what you should do to even get up off the floor, and it’s then that you know if you didn’t have a Solid Rock to stand on, you’d fall, and never stop falling.

Very angsty I know, but that’s how it feels, isn’t it?

However, I wish I could say that test is foolproof, but it’s not. Our will to live and be happy is strong, and humans can pull themselves up, or pull each other up, and still not know the real truth. Those people are still generally closer to it than others, but it doesn’t make them Right.

If so, every cruel person who survived their messed up childhood would be right.

Test 4: Conscience, (i. e. What points us to that way of life we know deep down is right.)

When what we fall back on is Truth, it will be pointing us to a certain way of life that we all know, deep down, is true.

Whether they admit it or not, every human knows that Love is the only true way of life that’s acceptable, either to ourselves, each other, or God.

What we fall back on can either make us more loving, or more selfish. We may feel both to be true. We have to choose.

There are times when it seems like Christianity works for everyone except me and my family.

I look at happier families who had much more functional parents than mind, and they say it’s because of God.

I look at people who got delivered of their physical ailments and emotional issues, while I am still waiting.

I look at people who are achieving big things that I want to be able to do.

And then I look at the people I know who’s home lives are worse than mine, who have been sick a lot longer with far worse problems then mine, and who have had way more set backs in their goals. And I conclude, we just can’t measure Truth by how well our lives are going.

Truth will stand all of these tests. If something fails one of them, it’s just not true, a nice thought, but not true. At the very most it might be partially true because it connects to a Higher Truth, like the “power of positive thinking” mantra can be helpful because there is a power in gratitude and praise…but it will not prevent hardship in your life, nor remove it, as some claim.

Final Test: Consistency

The final test of Worldview I apply is more like being able to see if anything in your worldview is hypocritical. If what you fall back on one time is literally the opposite of what you do another time. Like it’s okay to lie when it’s convenient for you, but not when it was convenient for someone else. Or even more subtly, you may claim all truth is equal, and then protest that racism is wrong because all people are equal, i. e. a statement that requires a belief in the absolute truth that Equality is a Good Thing.

(And yes, I know people close to me who will make that exact argument and admit it’s hypocritical in a way, but still make it.)

I guess I took a long time to explain this, but basically, whatever I write on here, most of it is stuff I’ve tested by all the above measures. Or seen tested by other people.

If I have some blind spots, I’ll find out when I meet God face to face, but by then I don’t know if it will matter anymore.

I hope you enjoyed this and found something in it maybe you hadn’t heard before, until next time, stay honest-Natasha.